I have noticed in this thread that the normal 'debating tactics' as used by various proponents here are tending to produce hilarious results.

The normal tactic of rebutting arguments by twisting things slightly "no, that's not really serious, it just produces slight discomfort" hardly applies when one is taking about military weapons of intended destruction - intended to kill outright, or at least maim sufficiently as to take the victim out of effective combat (the principle of economic attrition in warfare).